The Library of Congress has bought over 60 years of the U.S. Code from Hein Online. The historical research you will find here has not been available for free online before this publication by the Library of Congress. Because of the depth of the research at this site, you should definitely take a look.

There will be times when you will find no case law to support a state or federal statute. To make a convincing argument to the court, you may need to rely upon the legislative intent – the reason why the legislature made the law. To do that, you will need to read committee reports and other information to fully understand the legislature’s rationalization for writing the law as it did. These websites should enhance your ability to perform that research for federal statutes. -CCE

Sabrina Pacifici is, and has been, a prolific and reliable legal research resource for as long as I can remember. The quality of her work is without question. Here, she has given us a gift of a large compilation of excellent research sources, updated this month, and a “must bookmark.” I highly recommend her. -CCE

New standards are needed to plug security and privacy gaps in our cars and trucks, according to a report released today by Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). The report, called Tracking & Hacking: Security & Privacy Gaps Put American Drivers at Risk and first reported on by CBS News’ 60 Minutes, reveals how sixteen major automobile manufacturers responded to questions from Senator Markey in 2014 about how vehicles may be vulnerable to hackers, and how driver information is collected and protected. . . .

‘The information contained on this website comes primarily from three datasets provided by the Chicago Police Department (CPD), spanning approximately 2002 to 2008 and 2011 to 2015. The CPD has released these lists in response to litigation and to FOIA Requests. . . .’

Scholars of all types share their research here. You will often see it at SSRN before you see it in books and other publications. If you have not taken the time to truly investigate what you can find here, please give yourself a treat. -CCE

In What We Don’t Know We Don’t Know, I wrote about the overwhelming amount of data that is available today. This is especially true of the SSRN eLibrary. With over 600,000 papers, finding the right research may seem daunting. So, we significantly improved our search functionality.

SSRN’s new pagecentralizes all the tools you need to find stuff in the eLibrary. We combined Quick Search and Advanced Search onto one tab, and made it simple to switch to Browse SSRN Networks orBrowse JEL Codes. Did you even know all of those functions existed? . . . .

Both The Washington Post and The Guardian have created databases to track numerous details of every fatal shooting by a police officer and other law enforcement in the line of duty in the United States. The Guardian’s project is called “The Counted.” Both the Post and The Counted seek the public’s input, photographs, and videos in an attempt to make their respective databases as comprehensive as possible. -CCE

Technology is changing literally all the time. Unfortunately, the law does not. Congress has yet to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act. For example, there is no law that emails stored longer than 6 months has the same protection emails stored less than 6 months.

To date, there are no NSA reforms for surveillance of online communication. It is possible that Congress will go farther and mandate “back doors” to allow government to access more digital information. Reports of hackers accessing our financial and private information are no longer surprising. Although companies assure us that our information is secure, is it?

These matters go the heart of digital privacy issues for companies and individuals and FOIA requests. Some of you will be surprised how vulnerable we are. -CCE

‘Crime consistently ranks as one of the most followed and discussed topics by the public, and it receives more attention in local news media than almost any other subject. A recent Pew Research Center report reinforces these findings but also suggests that certain groups of residents pay closer attention to local crime than others in the three cities studied. A difference that particularly stands out is between racial and ethnic groups. . . .’

Small Rule Change That Could Give the U.S. Government Sweeping New Warrant Power, posted by Richard Salgado, Legal Director, Law Enforcement and Information Security, by Sabrina I Pacifici, BeSpacific Blog

‘At the request of the Department of Justice, a little-known body — the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure — is proposing a significant change to procedural rules that could have profound implications for the privacy rights and security interests of everyone who uses the Internet. Last week, Google filed comments opposing this change. It starts with the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, an arcane but important procedural rule on the issuance of search warrants. Today, Rule 41 prohibits a federal judge from issuing a search warrant outside of the judge’s district, with some exceptions. The Advisory Committee’s proposed change would significantly expand those exceptions in cases involving computers and networks. The proposed change would allow the U.S. government to obtain a warrant to conduct ‘remote access’ searches of electronic storage media if the physical location of the media is ‘concealed through technological means,’ or to facilitate botnet investigations in certain circumstances. The implications of this expansion of warrant power are significant, and are better addressed by Congress. First, in setting aside the traditional limits under Rule 41, the proposed amendment would likely end up being used by U.S. authorities to directly search computers and devices around the world. Even if the intent of the proposed change is to permit U.S. authorities to obtain a warrant to directly access and retrieve data only from computers and devices within the U.S., there is nothing in the proposed change to Rule 41 that would prevent access to computers and devices worldwide. The U.S. has many diplomatic arrangements in place with other countries to cooperate in investigations that cross national borders, including Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs). Google supports ongoing efforts to improve cooperation among governments, and we are concerned that the proposed change to Rule 41 could undermine those efforts. The significant foreign relations issues associated with the proposed change to Rule 41 should be addressed by Congress and the President, not the Advisory Committee.’

News release: ‘Attorney General Eric Holder announced today [February 3, 2015] that the Department of Justice and 19 states and the District of Columbia have entered into a $1.375 billion settlement agreement with the rating agency Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC, along with its parent corporation McGraw Hill Financial Inc., to resolve allegations that S&P had engaged in a scheme to defraud investors in structured financial products known as Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) and Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs). The agreement resolves the department’s 2013 lawsuit against S&P, along with the suits of 19 states and the District of Columbia. Each of the lawsuits allege that investors incurred substantial losses on RMBS and CDOs for which S&P issued inflated ratings that misrepresented the securities’ true credit risks. Other allegations assert that S&P falsely represented that its ratings were objective, independent and uninfluenced by S&P’s business relationships with the investment banks that issued the securities. The settlement announced today is comprised of several elements. In addition to the payment of $1.375 billion, S&P has acknowledged conduct associated with its ratings of RMBS and CDOs during 2004 to 2007 in an agreed statement of facts. It has further agreed to formally retract an allegation that the United States’ lawsuit was filed in retaliation for the defendant’s decisions with regard to the credit of the United States. Finally, S&P has agreed to comply with the consumer protection statutes of each of the settling states and the District of Columbia, and to respond, in good faith, to requests from any of the states and the District of Columbia for information or material concerning any possible violation of those laws. ’On more than one occasion, the company’s leadership ignored senior analysts who warned that the company had given top ratings to financial products that were failing to perform as advertised,’ said Attorney General Holder. ’As S&P admits under this settlement, company executives complained that the company declined to downgrade underperforming assets because it was worried that doing so would hurt the company’s business. While this strategy may have helped S&P avoid disappointing its clients, it did major harm to the larger economy, contributing to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.’ . . . [Emphasis added.] Continue reading →

‘…The Web dwells in a never-ending present. It is—elementally—ethereal, ephemeral, unstable, and unreliable. Sometimes when you try to visit a Web page what you see is an error message: ‘Page Not Found.’ This is known as ‘link rot,’ and it’s a drag, but it’s better than the alternative. More often, you see an updated Web page; most likely the original has been overwritten. (To overwrite, in computing, means to destroy old data by storing new data in their place; overwriting is an artifact of an era when computer storage was very expensive.) Or maybe the page has been moved and something else is where it used to be. This is known as ‘content drift,’ and it’s more pernicious than an error message, because it’s impossible to tell that what you’re seeing isn’t what you went to look for: the overwriting, erasure, or moving of the original is invisible. For the law and for the courts, link rot and content drift, which are collectively known as ‘reference rot,’ have been disastrous. In providing evidence, legal scholars, lawyers, and judges often cite Web pages in their footnotes; they expect that evidence to remain where they found it as their proof, the way that evidence on paper—in court records and books and law journals—remains where they found it, in libraries and courthouses. But a 2013 survey of law- and policy-related publications found that, at the end of six years, nearly fifty per cent of the URLs cited in those publications no longer worked. According to a 2014 study conducted at Harvard Law School, ‘more than 70% of the URLs within the Harvard Law Review and other journals, and 50% of the URLs within United States Supreme Court opinions, do not link to the originally cited information.’ The overwriting, drifting, and rotting of the Web is no less catastrophic for engineers, scientists, and doctors. Last month, a team of digital library researchers based at Los Alamos National Laboratory reported the results of an exacting study of three and a half million scholarly articles published in science, technology, and medical journals between 1997 and 2012: one in five links provided in the notes suffers from reference rot. It’s like trying to stand on quicksand…’

Jones, D. R., Law Firm Copying and Fair Use: An Examination of Different Purpose and Fair Use Markets (September 29, 2014). South Texas Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2014 – Forthcoming; University of Memphis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 144. Available for download at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2503089

‘In several recent lawsuits, publishers sued law firms for copyright infringement. The lawsuits focused on making unlicensed copies of scholarly articles to file with patent applications, including copies for the firms’ internal use and for the firms’ clients. In two of these cases, lower court judges determined that the making of unlicensed copies was fair use. The decisions hinged on transformative use, focusing on the defendant’s purpose for using the works. There was no alteration or change in the works. The judges found fair use, despite the possible availability of licensing. These patent application cases fit within a larger category of cases involving the use of copyrighted works in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. This article uses these cases as a vehicle to review the use of purpose in fair use analysis. It advocates that the review of the character and purpose of a use should include a deeper examination of the policies and societal interests underlying the use. This broader consideration is especially important if a plaintiff asserts the presence of a ready market for the payment of fees for use of a copyrighted work. This article explores the determination of a fair use market as a way to support the unlicensed use of copyrighted works although a ready market exists for the payment of fees. These cases offer an excellent model for the analysis necessary to determine a fair use market.’

[Via Emily Carr, Senior Legal Research Specialist, Library of Congress] – this posting by Ann Hemmens, legal reference librarian at the Law Library of Congress: Through an agreement with the Library of Congress, the publisher William S. Hein & Co., Inc. has generously allowed the Law Library of Congress to offer free online access to historical U.S. legal materials from HeinOnline. These titles are available through the Library’s web portal, Guide to Law Online: U.S. Federal, and include:

‘Thingful® is a search engine for the Internet of Things, providing a unique geographical index of connected objects around the world, including energy, radiation, weather, and air quality devices as well as seismographs, iBeacons, ships, aircraft and even animal trackers. Thingful’s powerful search capabilities enable people to find devices, datasets and realtime data sources by geolocation across many popular Internet of Things networks, and presents them using a proprietary patent-pending geospatial device data search ranking methodology, ThingRank®. If you are concerned about asthma, find out about any air quality monitors in your neighbourhood; somebody working with a Raspberry Pi can find others round the corner using the same computing platform; if you notice a ship moored nearby, discover more about it by tracking it on Thingful, or get notified of its movements; a citizen concerned about flooding in a new neighbourhood can look up nearby flood monitors or find others that have been measuring radiation. You might even watch the weekly movements of a shark as it explores the oceans. The possibilities are unbounded! Thingful also enables people and companies to claim and verify ownership of their things using a provenance mechanism, thereby giving them a single web page that aggregates information from all their connected devices no matter what network they’re on, in categories that include health, environment, home, transport, energy and flora & fauna. Users can also add objects to a Watchlist in order to keep track of them, monitor their realtime status and get notifications when they change.’

If you are not familiar with Sabrina Pacifici, it’s time for introductions. This exhaustive research guide is a special treat. She is the founder, editor and publisher of LLRX.com. In 2002, she started her BeSpacific Blog (http://www.bespacific.com/). This is only a taste of what you will find at LLRX.com and BeSpacific Blog. This is the good stuff. -CCE

If you are not familiar with Ms. Pacifici, I encourage you to check out her blog. She is an extraordinary researcher. These materials are interesting enough on their own, but you will see that the links take you to the FOIA Resources at The National Security Archive. The Government Attic Blog is also worth a good, long look. -CCE

‘National Security Counselors law firm has obtained a copy of the CIA Directorate of Intelligence Style Manual, Eighth Edition, 2011. It is entitled Style Manual & Writers Guide for Intelligence Publications. The CIA Guide is not alone. Each of the members of the Intelligence Community ­IC ­ have one or more Style Manuals to conform the reports and documents of that agency to a consistent writing style and usage. This is highly important to achieving clear and unambiguous communications of such matters.

‘Chairman John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV released a staff report titled, “A ‘Kill Chain’ Analysis of the 2013 Target Data Breach.’ The report details how Target possibly failed to take advantage of several opportunities to prevent the massive data breach in 2013 when cyber criminals stole the financial and personal information of as many as 110 million consumers. Rockefeller will formally introduce the report tomorrow when he chairs his third full Committee hearing on data security. The hearing, titled, ‘Protecting Personal Consumer Information from Cyber Attacks and Data Breaches’, explored the dangers to consumers posed by recent data breaches. The Chairman highlight[ed] legislation he recently introduced, the Data Security and Breach Notification Act, that would – for the first time – establish strong, federal consumer data security and breach notification standards.’

My apologies. I should have thought of going directly to LLRX.com as one of the first places to look for a strong compilation of foreign law materials. If you are not already familiar with LLRX.com, then I strongly recommend that you make this a bookmark and visit it frequently.

Sabrina I. Pacifici is the genius behind this website. She is its founder, editor, and publisher. She also is the author of beSpacific Blog. < http://www.bespacific.com/> This is another blot add to your bookmarks. Ms. Pacifici is a well-recognized expert on legal research, and her work is consistently top notch. Again, both web sites are worth poking around. One never knows what other useful information may pop up. -CCE